Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Rwanda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Organic Law No 04/2012/OL abolishing Gacaca courts is no longer in force and cannot be challenged for constitutionality. The challenge to Article 197(4) of Law No 027/2019 is admissible because the legal grounds and factual context differ from those in the Kamanzi Anaclet case, so res judicata does not apply.
Source excerpt
The petition is admissible because Article 106 of Law No 027/2019, though similar in part to the previously reviewed Article 121 of Law No 13/2004, contains new elements and wording, and the applicant raises new constitutional grounds. Res judicata does not bar review where the legal provision or its context has materially changed.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court found conflicting final judgments over the same land dispute, set aside the later High Court decision, and upheld the earlier judgment and Abunzi decision.
The Supreme Court held that ACOADI Ltd’s application was barred by res judicata, because the same parties had already litigated the same debt claim.
The Court of Appeal held that Benda Rosine’s second appeal was inadmissible because she had lost in the lower courts on the same grounds. Costs were awarded to the district.
The applicant failed to provide credible, non-speculative evidence that the electricity pylons or transmission line caused compensable harm or prevented the use of his land for its designated agricultural purpose. The applicant's claims for compensation and removal of pylons are unsupported by admissible evidence. New claims regarding relocation cannot be entertained in a review for injustice as they were not raised in prior proceedings.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal held Kabirigi Gérard’s revision-for-injustice claim was admissible despite no second appeal, because a second appeal would have been inadmissible on the same grounds.
The Court of Appeal held that Rucamihigo had lost on the same substantive ground in both lower courts, so his second appeal was inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal held it had jurisdiction over the urgent application, but dismissed it as inadmissible because the issue had already been finally decided.
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was inadmissible because the appellants had lost in both lower courts on the same legal grounds.
Explore more
